International Journal of Computer Science Trends and Technology (IJCST) Volume 5 Issue 6, Nov - Dec 2017

RESEARCH ARTICLE OPEN ACCESS

Hierarchical and Power Proficient Routing Protocol for Wireless

Sensor Networks
Renu Sharma [1], Pooja Chopra [2]
M.Tech Scholar [1], M.Tech [2]
Department of Computer Science & Enggineering
International Institute of technology and Business
Jhundpur, Sonipat
Haryana-India

ABSTRACT
Wireless sensor networks consist of small battery powered devices with limited energy resources. Once deployed, the small sensor
nodes are usually inaccessible to the user, and thus replacement of the energy source is not possible. So, the energy consciousness issue
is the primary concern within the domain of Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs). Most power dissipation occurs during communication
and path selection, thus routing protocols in WSNs mainly aim at energy conservation. Moreover, a routing protocol should be flexible,
so that its effectiveness does not degrade as the network size increases. In response to these issues, this work describes the development
of a data centric and efficient routing protocol, named HPPRP.
Keywords:- wireless sensor networks; routing protocols; clustering; energy efficiency; hierarchical routing;

I. INTRODUCTION lifetime of the wireless sensor networks. LEACH, PEGASIS,

Wireless sensor networks (WSNs) are becoming increasingly
popular in many spheres of life. Application [3] domains
include monitoring of the environment (e.g. temperature,
humidity, and seismic activity) as well as numerous other
ecological, law enforcement, and military settings. Regardless
of the application, most WSNs have two notable properties in
common: the networks overall goal is typically to reach a
collective conclusion regarding the outside environment, which
requires detection and coordination at the sensor level, and
WSNs act under severe technological constraints: individual
sensors have severely limited computation, communication and
power (battery) resources while operating in settings with great
spatial and temporal variability. Wireless sensor networks
(WSNs) are becoming increasingly popular in many spheres of
life. Many researches concerning protocols for wireless sensor
networks have been studied to improve the energy
consumption and the network lifetime. Those protocols can be
categorized into three classes: routing protocols, sleep-and
awake scheduling protocols, and clustering protocols. The
routing protocols determine the energy-efficient multi-hop
paths [2] from each node to the sink node. In sleep-and-awake
scheduling protocols, every node in the schedule can sleep, in
order to minimize energy consumption. In clustering protocols,
data aggregation can be used for reducing energy consumption.
Data aggregation, also known as data fusion, can combine
multiple data packets received from different sensor nodes. It
reduces the size of the data packet by eliminating the
redundancy. Wireless communication cost is also decreased by
the reduction in the data packets. Therefore, clustering
protocols improve the energy consumption and the network
SHPER, BCDCP [1], [6-7] are representative clustering
protocols of wireless sensor networks. However, the unsolved
problem of considerable energy consumption on the cluster
formation still exists. The cluster formation overhead of the
clustering protocols includes packet transmission cost of the
advertisement, announcement, joining, and scheduling
messages from sensor nodes. Also, these protocols do not
support adaptive multi-level clustering [8], [9] in which the
clustering level cannot be changed until the new configuration
is made by the network director. Therefore, the existing
protocols are not adaptable to the various node distributions or
the various sensing area. If the sensing area is changed by
dynamic circumstances of the networks, the fixed-level
clustering protocols may operate inefficiently in terms of
energy consumption.
In this paper, we present a new protocol, which is data centric
and energy-efficient clustering hierarchy protocol for wireless
sensor networks where Base-Station is assumed to have energy
and computing power in abundance and also it is assumed to
know all the node locations. The proposed HPPRP protocols
were evaluated by computer simulations and compared with
BCDCP. In this paper, the energy consumption, standard
deviation of the energy consumption, residual energy
distribution, and the network lifetime of the clustering
protocols are evaluated. The simulation results demonstrate
that HPPRP significantly minimizes the energy consumption
and extends the network lifetime of the wireless sensor
networks over existing clustering protocol BCDCP.

ISSN: 2347-8578 www.ijcstjournal.org Page 104

 International Journal of Computer Science Trends and Technology (IJCST) Volume 5 Issue 6, Nov - Dec 2017
II. RELATED WORK
In BCDCP every node has similar clustering like [5] LEACH.
We can see that BCDCP is more efficient than LEACH in two
aspects; first by introducing Minimal Spanning Tree (MST) to
connect to CH which randomly chooses a leader to send data to
sink. Second, BCDCP makes the best use of high energy BS to
choose CHs and form cluster by interactive cluster splitting
algorithm [8], [9]. Thus BCDCP has work well to route data
energy efficiently in small-scale network but their network
topology constrains them to do so in a large scale network.
Because the club topology [4] in clusters is a one-hop route
scheme, it is not appropriated for long distance wireless
communication. First in BCDCP, one cluster head is randomly
chosen to forward data the Base Station. Because the CH in
each cluster will send data to the CH closest to it based on
minimum spanning tree, this burdens the routing to the Base
Station (BS). All the Cluster Heads sends data to one
specifically chosen Cluster Head that will finally send the
aggregated data to the Base Station. Thus, BCDCP[3] is at
disadvantage when there is a large number of sensor node and
cluster heads. Due to the large number, sensor nodes need
more energy for intra and inter cluster data transmission. This
creates an unbalance in energy consumption and decreases
network lifetime.
So the CH closet to BS has not sufficient energy for the further
rounds. Whereas the SHPER [4] protocol specifies that the
election of the cluster heads is not randomized. More precisely,
the node elected to be the cluster head within each cluster is
the one having the maximum residual energy. Furthermore, the
route selection policy proposed takes into consideration both
the residual energy of nodes and the energy consumption for
all possible paths. In its allocated transmission time, each node
sends to its cluster head quantitative data concerning the
sensed events. In a way similar to that proposed in TEEN [5]
hard and soft thresholds are utilized in the SHPER protocol
too. So in this paper we proposed a new protocol which is
based on BCDCP and SHPER.
III. THE RADIO MODEL FOR HPPRP
The radio model consists of three parts: transmitter, the power
amplifier and the receiver. There are two propagation models:
free space model and two-gray ground propagation model.
Both the free space (d2 power loss) and (two gray propagating)
the multipath fading (d4 power loss) channel models are used
depending on the distance between transmitter and receiver.
The energy spent for transmission of an l-bit packet from the
transmitter to the receiver at a distance (d) is defined as:
ETx(l,d) = l*Eelec + l**d= l*Eelec + l*fs* d 2, d < d0=
l*Eelec + l*mp* d4, d d0 (1)
ETx is the energy dissipated in the transmitter of source node.
The electronic energy Eelec is the per bit energy dissipation for
running the transceiver circuitry. Here the amplifier energy,
ISSN: 2347-8578 www.ijcstjournal.org
fs*d2 or mp*d4, depend on transmission distance and
acceptable bit-error rate. The cross over distance d0 can be
obtained from:
d0= ( fs / mp) (2)
ERxis the energy expanded to receive message
ERx(l) = l*Eelec (3)
The distance (d) of node from one node another node is:
d= ((x1-x2)2 + (y1-y2)2 ).(4)
In formula (4) d indicates distance node, (x, y, z) indicates
variables as node position in field area network Energy cluster
(Ecluster) is the sum of energy in Cluster Heads;
Ecluster=ki*ETx(l,d)+ ERx(l) +EDA ----(5)
In formula (5) ki indicates the number of member nodes in the
Cluster Heads; ETx(l,d) indicates energy transmission;
ERx(l)indicate energy receiver and EDA indicates energy of
data aggregation.
IV. TERMINOLOGY USED
1. The terminology used to explain the routing protocol
and the elements implemented on it are described here
to make easy to follow the detailed description
provided in the following sections.
2. START is the message used by base station. Initially,
Base station broadcast this message to all the sensor
nodes in the field to indicate that all nodes should
start their task.
3. HELLO is the message broadcasts by all the nodes
after receiving START message, in order to find their
neighbors. This HELLO message will reach to those
nodes only that are within range of that node.
4. REPLY is the message send by a node when it
receives HELLO message. This message contain the
node id. After receving the REPLY message, each
node makes it neibhbor list. Initially a node has empty
neighbor list. When a node replies with its ID, then
node receiving REPLY message retrives the ID and
make entry in its neighbor list.
5. STATUS is the message send to base station either
directly or via gateway. It contains neighbor list,
residual energy of the node. After collecting the
neighbor information, each node send STATUS
message to the base station.
6. ACK is the acknowlegement send by the base station
and those nodes which receives STATUS message.
That means when base station receives STATUS
message directly it send back an ACK message. Or
when a node (Gate Way) have STATUS message, It
also sends back an ACK message to acknowldge them
that STATUS has been succesfully received.
7. GW_ADV is the message used to advertise the nodes
themselves as a Gate Way. Actually, if the base
Page 105
 International Journal of Computer Science Trends and Technology (IJCST) Volume 5 Issue 6, Nov - Dec 2017

station is in the range of nodes then those nodes can Performance will be evaluated according to parameters
send their STATUS to base station directly. But in like network lifetime, energy dissipation, no. of data
the case if it is not within their range, then nodes packets sent etc.
needs to have their gateway (or gateways) to send
their STATUS up to base station.
8. When a node receive ACK message, then it advertise VI. PARAMETERS AND RESULTS
itself as a Gate Way by sending GW_ADV message.
A node receiving GW_ADV, sends their STATUS to Parameter Value
gate way advertising node. In this case, a node can Network field: 100x100m
receive GW_ADV message from many nodes. But it N (Number of nodes): 150
send their STATUS to only that node from where it Initial energy: 2J
has received GW_ADV message early. Eelec (E.Dissipation for ETx&ERx): 50 nJ/bit
fs (free space): 10 pJ/bit/m2
V. PROPOSED ALGORITHM mp (Multipath fading): 0.0013 pJ/bit/m4
Initially, base station is centralized and 150 nodes are EDA (Energy Aggregation Data): 5 nJ/bit/signal
setup in a particular region 100 x 100m and each node has Data packet size: 4000 bits
equal energy 2 joules.
The base station creates a TDMA (Time Division Multiple
Access) schedule and requests the nodes to advertise
themselves i.e. their geographical location in the network
field. The size of this schedule is equal to the number of
the existing network nodes.
In round 1, the iterative cluster splitting algorithm is
followed such as the selected cluster heads are uniformly
placed throughout the whole sensor field by maximizing
the distance between cluster heads in each splitting step.
Cluster Head from all the clusters will be created
according to probability condition as well as the distance
parameter. (i.e. distance from the BS). Rest of the nodes
sends the sensed data to their respective cluster heads in its
TDMA slot and energy consumption will be calculated.
Each Cluster Head will aggregate the data and send it to
the base station according to its time slot and energy Figure 1.1: No. of Rounds vs Network Lifetime
consumption will be calculated for each node and cluster
heads. Figure 1.1 shows the comparison of BCDCP and HPPRP
In round 2, protocol specifies that the election of the protocol according to number of nodes died. All nodes of
cluster heads is not randomized. More precisely, the node BCDCP protocol are died very earlier as compared to HPPRP.
elected to be the cluster head within each cluster is the one
having the maximum residual energy. Table -1.1 shows the Comparative analysis BCDCP and
The route selection procedure proposed takes into HPPRP in terms of Network Lifetime (in Rounds). It can be
consideration both the residual energy of nodes and the observed from table 1 that the HPPRP performs well as
energy consumption for all possible paths. compare to BCDCP. The first node of HPPRP is dead around
After selection of cluster heads, nodes sends the sensed 3330 rounds whereas BCDCP first node dead around 3099
data in its TDMA slot to their respective cluster heads, rounds. As the nodes starts communicating, they will lose their
that will be selected according to the minimum distance of
a particular node from cluster heads and energy energy. So, the whole network is dead around 4767 in case of
consumption will be calculated. BCDCP, but in HPPRP the network is dead around 5711
Cluster Head will aggregate the data and send it to the rounds.
base station in its time slot and energy consumption will
be calculated.
Steps 4 to 7 will be repeated until the whole network gets
down or number of rounds finished.

ISSN: 2347-8578 www.ijcstjournal.org Page 106

 International Journal of Computer Science Trends and Technology (IJCST) Volume 5 Issue 6, Nov - Dec 2017

Table -1.1 Comparative analysis BCDCP and HPPRP in terms As future aspects we can think over other task scheduling
of Network Lifetime (in Rounds) methods like CDMA and FDMA. We can also think over
security constraint during transmission Phase.
First Ten Half Whole
Node Nodes Network Network
Dead Dead Dead ( in Dead (in
(in (in Rounds) Rounds)
Rounds) Rounds) REFERENCES
BCDCP 3099 3370 3693 4767
HPPRP 3330 3482 3834 5711 [1] W. R. Heinzelman, A. P. Chandrakasan, and H.
Balakrishnan, Energy- Efficient Communication
Protocol for Wireless Microsensor Networks, Proc.
33rd Hawaii Intl. Conf. Sys. Sci., Jan. 2000.
[2] V. Raghunathan et al., Energy-Aware Wireless
Microsensor Networks, IEEE Sig. Proc. Mag., vol. 1,
no. 2, Mar. 2002, pp. 4050.
[3] SIVA D. MURUGANATHAN, DANIEL C. F. MA,
ROLLY I. BHASIN, AND ABRAHAM O.
FAPOJUWO, UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY A
Centralized Energy-Efficient Routing Protocol for
Wireless Sensor Networks IEEE Radio
Communications in March 2005
[4] Dionisis Kandris, Panagiotis Tsioumas, Anthony Tzes
, George Nikolakopoulos and Dimitrios D. Vergados
Power Conservation through Energy Efficient
Routing in Wireless Sensor Networks Sensors 2009,
Figure 1.2: No. of Rounds Vs Energy Consumption 9, 7320-7342; doi:10.3390/s90907320.
[5] Manjeshwar, A.; Agrawal, D.P. TEEN: a routing
Figure 1.2 shows the lifetime of the network. It shows that how protocol for enhanced efficiency in wireless sensor
energy of the network consumes step by step and finally whole networks. In 15th International Parallel and
network goes down. It can be observed from the figure that, Distributed Symposium, San Francisco, CA, USA,
HPPRP consumes less energy and sustain more number of April 2001; pp. 20092015.
rounds as compare to BCDCP protocol. [6] Sangho Yi, Junyoung Heo, Yookun Cho, Jiman Hong
PEACH: Power-efficient and adaptive clustering
VII.CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK hierarchy protocol for wireless sensor networks
Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.com
com.2007.05.034.
In this paper we propose a centralized clustering-based routing [7] SHA Chao, WANG Ru-chuan, HUANG Hai-ping1,
protocol, HPPRP that utilizes the high-energy CH to perform SUN Li-juan, Energy efficient clustering algorithm
most energy-intensive tasks. By using the base station, the for data aggregation in wireless sensor networks
sensor nodes are relieved of performing energy intensive December 2010, 17(Suppl. 2): 104109
computational tasks such as cluster setup, cluster head www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10058885.
selection, routing path formation, and TDMA schedule [8] Muhammad Saleem, Israr Ullah, Muddassar Farooq,
creation. Performance of the proposed HPPRP protocol is BeeSensor: An energy-efficient and scalable routing
assessed by simulation and compared to other clustering-based protocol for wireless sensor networks Information
protocol BCDCP. The simulation results show that HPPRP Sciences 200 (2012) pp. 3856.
outperforms its comparatives by uniformly placing cluster [9] Hakan Bagci, Adnan Yazici, Department of Computer
heads throughout the whole sensor field, performing balanced Engineering, Middle East Technical University,
clustering, and using a CH-to-CH routing scheme to transfer Ankara, Turkey, An energy aware fuzzy approach to
aggregated data to the base station. It is also observed that the unequal clustering in wireless sensor networks
performance gain of HPPRP over its counterparts increases Applied Soft Computing 13 (2013) pp. 17411749
with the area of the sensor field. Therefore, it is concluded that
HPPRP provides an energy efficient routing scheme suitable
for a vast range of sensing applications.

ISSN: 2347-8578 www.ijcstjournal.org Page 107